Posted on 08/30/2008 7:09:59 AM PDT by chessplayer
McCain has sacrificed for this country. Obama has not.
McCain has years and years of experience, to include this unique experience as a POW. Obama does not have executive, military, or international experience at all, and he has very little legislative experience.
I would as soon put the nation in Obama’s hand as I would any other novice. That’s why the ZerObama crew is running hard against Sarah Palin, but he doesn’t even have her level of experience.
So, I fully understand anyone resenting the Fed taking away their land either directly or through seizing control of the land by declaring it national property.
It's something I've long felt about the elites on the coasts, particularly the Boston, NYC, to DC crowd. We are just flyover country to them, except when they want a park. They like to declare us their amusement/entertainment areas, so they can camp and hug trees, and show us their oh so wise. The truth is that they've paved over their own paradise and have no intention whatsoever leaving their concrete jungles, but they sure like to steal the property of others, so they can maintain their phony earth-friendly self-images.
Hypocrites.
So, I fully understand anyone resenting the Fed taking away their land either directly or through seizing control of the land by declaring it national property.
It's something I've long felt about the elites on the coasts, particularly the Boston, NYC, to DC crowd. We are just flyover country to them, except when they want a park. They like to declare us their amusement/entertainment areas, so they can camp and hug trees, and show us they're oh so wise. The truth is that they've paved over their own paradise and have no intention whatsoever leaving their concrete jungles, but they sure like to steal the property of others, so they can maintain their phony earth-friendly self-images.
Hypocrites.
Out of respect for Obama I will consider his candidacy as I would any other candidate. It just so happens that with me socialism is a pretty big strike against. :)
And have we ever had such a pro-life ticket? Most Republican candidates barely give it lip-service. But McCain is no late-comer; he's always been pro-life. And between her own baby with Down Syndrome and her pregnant daughter, who is living life more affirmatively than Sarah Palin?
I agree. Palin has PROVED that she walks the talk. And McCain has a long and strong pro-life record. Kosta is right, though, to raise the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I remember being very ticked at him when he voted for federal funding about 4 years ago. However, FWIW, this is what his campaign website says about it now:
This on the record, along with Palin at his side, makes me think that he's not going to try to pull anything that will anger us on this.
Not an unreasonable assumption, but given the fact that he spent most of his time in solitary, that is somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? A list of co-prisoners would be helpful.
It is just an assumption. I don’t have a huge investment in it.
However, he was the son of the chief naval guy in the Pacific, Admiral McCain. That wouldn’t have made him commander, but it would have had eyes on him among his fellow prisoners.
Well, if you really want to push that issue, consider that those resources belong to the Alaskan Natives, not white settlers who took that land from them. Othwerwise, we all must agree that robbery becomes legitimate over time.
By what right are those white settlers opposed to the Federal Government controlling some of those resources? It's turf wars at the expense of Native rights, no matter how you look at it.
The white settlers comprise 69.3% of the population (2000 census), while the Alaskan Natives make up only 15.6% (same census). If you really want to be an advocate of "rights" of Alaskans, justice would be served only if Alaska were to be turned into a Native reservation, because it is a stolen land by whites regardless if they are government or not.
But that won't happen, because those who took it form the Natives are fighting amongst themselves in their name. If they think it's so wrong, why don't they make Alaska a Native Reservation?
The greatest source of income in the state is from oil and natural gas, but they aren't being allowed to fully develop those resources
Part of being in the Union is that State rights and laws are subject to Federal Laws. This is not a commonwealth, or a Confederation of States, but a Federation.
Alaskans have been asking for Statehood for decades. The bills presented to US Congress were rejected by Republicans who feared that Alaskans would be heavily Democrats and they didn't want the balance to shift in their favor.
This is one of those obscene aspects of our past that most Americans don't know about; another one being Robert Kennedy's and LBJ's reform of the immigration laws in order to cause demographic changes favorable for the Democrats; the result: by 2040 the US will no longer have a majority white population; illegal immigration which flourised under the current Administration notwithstanding.
The Republicans continued to block statehood all the way until 1958 when Hawaii petitioned for Statehood. Firmly convicted that Hawaii would be Republican, the Eisenhower administration worked out a compromise bill that brought both states into the Union.
The Alaskan Independence Party argues that the people were never given a chance to vote for union. They did, immediately after World War II. It's all turf wars, and AIP's founder, whose principles and views the Party relishes, was an outspoken Anti-American.
In prison they were all the same. He was suffering along with them. Why would they look up to him?
Besides being a party animal, McCain distinguished himself as being the 5th from the bototm of his class of over 800 cadets to graduate from the Academy.
Yet, despite that, he got to go the the most selective flight school to become a fighter pilot, which is a shoe-in for fast promotions and top command (carrier) positions in one's career. Personally I don't think a near-flunky would have been so fortunate. I also doubt that he commanded much respect among those who had to work for what they got.
Academy rank doesn’t mean a lot. Some of the highest have been great generals/admirals, and some of the lowest have been great generals/admirals. In wartime even more; rank becomes irrelevant.
Also, stupid people don’t get into any of the academies.
I agree about fighters getting the choice assignments in any of the services. However, that is as it should be.
I just saw FoxNew’s piece on McCain while this conversation has been taking place on FR. Bud Day was a fellow prisoner. They called him Col Bud Day, but I’m assuming he attained that rank after his POW years. I could be wrong. In any case, Day indicates that they knew McCain was the Admiral’s son, because McCain refused to leave ahead of others. Day says that McCain said he’d leave when his time came, and even then he’d let the worst wounded/sick leave before him.
That’s pretty impressive, but that’s not why I point it out. I point it out because it means they all knew McCain was the admiral’s son and that he had won their admiration.
What decision(s) that you have specific knowledge of did she make about her child that you criticize? The decision I know about for sure is that she decided to have the baby, unlike 80% of other mothers in that situation. That wasn't putting politics first, that was putting faith and values first.
She is also a hardline Evangelical Christian and I do not trust people who think they are on a mission from God. That is too Mohammedan for me.
Do you have a specific statement along these lines you strongly object to? Or better yet, do you believe that you are NOT on a mission from God? Kosta, ALL Christians are on a mission from God.
She also spouts Christian values and her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant! If she can't instill Christian values in her own family, then all this "hollier-than-thou" is a label with no substance.
It sounds like you believe that children of good and Godly parents don't make mistakes like this. It sounds like you don't personally know any parent, you know is a good Christian, who has had any moral problems concerning their children like this. That just can't be true because it defies the reality of the world. There are tons of examples in the Bible disproving your assertion. One is that you must think the father of the prodigal son was a terrible father.
I'm afraid you take the far left position on this one by accusing Palin of hypocrisy for what her daughter did. To the shock of the left and the media, Bible believing Christians have come out in force to support the family. No one condones what the daughter did, but everyone recognizes that the family came together and made wise choices afterwards. I just saw this article earlier today explaining why those who would agree with you on this don't understand us: Sarah Palin's Amazing Grace. It's reasonably short and right on point to your statement.
Many people in this country would still consider what happened to her daughter as scandalous. But the Palins seem to be fine with that.
I'm not sure what you think Sarah Palin should have done. Should she have disowned her daughter? The Palins are public personalities. They did not shout this with glee from the mountaintop. When it became clear it was going to come out they hit the issue square on with love and support for their daughter. Many would have secreted her away for an abortion. The Palins did not.
But, all these objections set aside, I based my judgment as a reaction to Karl Rove's conviction that Gov. Kaine of Virginia was unqualified to serve as Vice President even though he was a Governor longer than Palin (twice a long), in a state that has 11 times the population of Alaska, and was a mayor of a city that has one third the population of Alaska, and 21 times the population of Wasilla, AK.
So, you base your judgment of Palin based on something Karl Rove said about someone else??? Well, if you think that's fair, then OK. The fact remains that objectively Sarah Palin is MORE qualified by experience than Obama is. In the voting decision, one looks first to the Presidential candidate. The experience comparison there is embarrassing. So, it is obvious that millions and millions are willing to overlook that lone issue.
But you seem to expect everyone else to be objective with Gov. Palin?!?
I do not think you are being objective. If you used the criterion you just told me about, then you would not be able to vote for any candidate for almost anything. Somewhere, a pundit would have criticized another person with a similar background, and you would be forced to disqualify the first person because of that. IOW, if you were being objective, then you would have to more quickly disqualify Obama on experience and announce that you're not voting for either ticket, which is of course your right.
I can't, because no man to my knowledge has a broken water and risked infection to deliver the speech instead of going to the hospital, as the specialists recommend, let alone take a roundabout way to deliver in Alaska because you don't want your "Alaskan fisherman" to be a "Texan!" (I am assuming you have done your research and are familiar with what I am referring to)
I'm assuming you're referring to a two-paragraph blurb in a liberal Texas newspaper, quoting an Alaskan NBC affiliate. No attribution is given as to sourcing, such as "Her doctors said:". If you have nothing more, then you might as well go right to KOS to get the information you want to use in your arguments. :)
You're assuming that she is good and the other side is bad. So far I have not seen anything concrete to back up your assumptions. You have not quoted one source, just your opinions.
I KNOW the other side is bad because I hear what they tell me about themselves, and I know their voting records. I assume Palin is good from what I have heard so far. I "think" I can source anything I've said about her, so if you have a specific request, go ahead. :) As of today, there is no question that I do NOT know her as well as the others. I want to know more, and I will. So far virtually everything I know I like, so I'm supporting her so far. That's reasonable.
The worst thing is that the press will not go away. Sarah Palin needs the press on her side rather than antagonize the press. Of course, the McCain staff will not let her say anything to the press for a good reason.
AFTER you wrote this I just heard that they are rolling out a media schedule to send her to the wolves. That's good because she MUST show that she can handle herself. I think the first one is going to be with Charlie Gibson on Thursday. I don't blame the campaign at all for taking a few days to bring her up to speed on all of McCain's positions, which it is her main job to defend. That's what VEEPs do. There's no "hiding" of her. She WILL be dealing with the press and I hope she does well.
Has Kolo and Kosta ever been seen together?
Who is Stevens?
Sorry. Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 88 years old. Appointed by RINO Gerald Ford, he is generally considered to be the most liberal on the bench. I have no doubt that he is waiting to turn his seat over to another liberal.
Mission statement of Alaskan Independence Party founder, Joe Volger: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American...I've got no use for America or her damned institutions. The fires of hell are glaciers compared to my hate for America and her government." I guess that's nothing...
The website does not list this as a mission statement. It does list a platform though, which I posted to you. That leads with a pledge of allegiance to the US Constitution. I don't know Joe Volger, and I don't defend him. He died 15 years ago. The quote above makes HIM sound like a nut. And, it is ridiculous to connect this quote with Sarah Palin. You show me anything she has ever said or done demonstrating that she agrees with this quote and then you've got something. So far I see zilch.
That same Joe Vogler (in 1990) published the following picture to represent the relationship between the US and Alaska) It shows the US as a huge snake swallowing Alaska. I guess that's nothing to you as well. Not only that, I am making it up, right?
I DON'T CARE who Joe Vogler is, Sarah Palin is not Volger. And apparently, the AIP is not Volger either if you look at the platform. I see your line of reasoning as being akin to doing a geneology search and discovering that Palin's great-great grandfather stole an apple in 1910. THEREFORE, she is unqualified to be Vice-President. :)
Kosta, what you are trying to do to Palin's HUSBAND, not even Palin herself because you have even less than nothing there, would be like me accusing you of agreeing with everything you hate about the Iraq war because you served at one time in the military. Whenever you joined, I must automatically assume that you agreed with all the decisions made during those years by your leaders because hey, you joined. Therefore, you own it all. Just tell me the years you served and I will tell you what you agreed with because of it. That's what you're doing to Todd Palin. The HOME PAGE of the party website says this: "Todd Palin was registered as a member but never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time.". Your participation in the military was much greater than that, so you must be held accountable for much more than Todd Palin.
Yeah, well I LIVE in fly over country and us folks are delighted and encourage those who think like you do to just keep thinking of us exactly like that. Obama dismisses us like that too, and I hope it continues.
The Republican Party Convention had a total of 36 black delegates, or 1.5% of the total delegate count. If the Democrats are being accused of "sexism" I think the Republicans deserve to be accused of "racism."
We Republicans don't judge others by skin color. Democrats do that. Therefore, no token black delegates at the convention. Those who get to be delegates are those who do the most work for the party and in the campaigns. If you can show me where black Republican prospective delegates were denied because of skin color, then make your charge and back it up. You cannot, and I assume your point is there is likewise no charge against liberals for sexism against Palin. We obviously don't agree on what sexism is. I gave you solid examples which you brisked away. The only comparison I can think of is when the New Black Panthers claim that blacks are incapable of racism by definition. I gathered that you didn't think it possible for liberals to be sexist for the same reason.
But the reality is that America is not 98.5% non-black. I think it's safe to say that the GOP is now a liberal organization that is out of touch with America's reality trying to cut ties to anything G. W. Bush did in the past 8 years, while clinging to guns and religion, in my opinion. And I think this (retrograde) change is permanent, just as Rush suggested.
I don't think the GOP is now liberal. Bush went "all in" with the war and is now very unpopular. The only chance Republicans had was to let the blue bloods have a turn this time. I think that's all it is. I still think the conservative base wields a ton of power. Harriet Meiers, amnesty, Lieberman as VP? If Obama wins he won't have to deal with us, but if McCain wins, he WILL. :) We just didn't have the talent this time around.
If Obama wins, thank G. W. Bush.
To some extent, yeah, but in the same breath I thank George Bush that we have had no more terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. There is no way in the universe that would be true had either Gore or Kerry been elected. In a sense, Bush practiced what McCain has preached, rather losing an election (2006 and maybe this year) than a war.
Do you have any documentation or news accounts describing this situation or why McCain was the only one against? I was thinking that if I was Obama (maybe he can't because of Clinton), or the MSM, or any of McCain's primary opponents, or any of his opponents for Senate re-election I would have used this information. Yet, I couldn't find anything.
And now he picks as his running mate a woman who uses her four month old child with Down Syndrome as a prop at a political convention. Some character! /s
What is the basis of your "prop" comment? If she had any decency should she have hired a baby sitter and kept him in a closet so the rest of the world couldn't see? :) She was showing the world her family, just as it is, pregnant daughter and all, WITH her boyfriend. She's not ashamed of her daughter and she's not ashamed of Trig. I wouldn't be ashamed either with that family. Where are you coming from, Kolo? :)
“Do you have any documentation or news accounts describing this situation or why McCain was the only one against?”
The press wasn’t invited to the meetings and though there was a press conference at the National Press Club during one visit, I am sure we weren’t going after McCain at that meeting. I know that Sen. Helms was NOT pleased with McCain. To tell you the truth, we were surprised at McCain’s reaction. We had counted on him as a sure supporter.
“If she had any decency should she have hired a baby sitter and kept him in a closet so the rest of the world couldn’t see?”
Yes, but not to hide him, to keep him safe. Infants with Down Syndrome have compromised immune systems. They catch infections very easily, especially respiratory infections which can kill them. Exposing that baby to thousands of howling politicos so she can look like the evangelicals’ idea of a good mother was abominable behavior. Clearly, her ego and lust for power has out weighed whatever maternal instincts she might have toward that baby. That the “First Dude” (God help us!) stood by as a partner in endangering that little fellow doesn’t help matters any.
You are twisting things, FK. I am surprised. Grabbing at straws? My comment was referencing Gov.Palin's welcoming address to the AIP. I never said she was a secesisonist. I have no clue what Mr. Palin's attitude is regarding Independence. But he was a member of a Party that was founded by an Anti-American and remind s true to him.
You said: "So, Alaskan secessionist traitors are better than Communists? May I quote you on that?" Since the whole point of your many posts on this clearly appears to be to link the Palins to the AIP, what else can anyone think but that you are calling the Palins secessionists? If you don't think you know then why in the world are you working so hard to try to establish a link that MEANS something? Are you just throwing out all this stuff for fun? Please tell us what you think you reasonably know about the Palins being "secessionist traitors", as you used that term.
There is a "new" Black Panther organization and as far as I know it has not reached for violence as a means of their political ascent.
That's right, but I have seen their leaders interviewed. For some reason Hannity has them on a lot. Anyway, they are still militant, but without overt violence being publicly encouraged. IOW, I think they have the same philosophy as the old Panthers, but they're smart enough not to go under the way the first ones did. There is still no comparison to the AIP.
I am really, really trying to get to the bottom of this issue, because there are rumors, false information, and above all silence from the Palins on the topic. But it sounds to me that instead of being suspicious of the silence you seem to use it to rely, really unconditionally like her.
Oh come on. There are 10,000 questions waiting for her out there. If she doesn't answer them all at once you say she is avoiding the issues? How about give her a chance? :) My guess would be that Alaskans know that there is no there, there about this AIP thing so it's never been a big deal. (She obviously got elected Governor with that info out there.) It's fine if some want to ask her about it now, but there are also other issues she should probably be dealing with too at this time, don't you think? My instinct tells me that she will knock any question about the AIP right out of the park.
I am saying that it is a Party that advocates disloyalty to the United States.
Well, they have a funny way of advertising that. As I said, the NUMBER ONE platform they list is allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
It advocates the right to secession by vote. It doesn't provide a reliable number of how many favor Independence but reason tells you that if they didn't stand to gain something from this vote, they wouldn't ask for it.
They are trying to prove a point. When they advocate taking up arms, then you've got something. Those members who are pushing this are harmless, and it's NOT in the platform. I WILL admit that the website as a whole is a bit schizophrenic about what they really want, but if it's not in the platform, then it's not in the platform. In any event whatever you imagine anyone expecting from any imagined vote that will never happen IS IRRELEVANT to the Palins, or Sarah running for VP.
I thought the same thing. But I happen to know that there IS such a party in Vermont. O'Reilly has interviewed their leader. He's a nut, but he was harmless. The "movement" is going nowhere. IIRC, 10% of Vermonters want a vote. So what? They aren't calling for any violence either. They should be ignored too. O'Reilly offered to buy them plane tickets to go join Canada, etc. It was pretty funny. :) And there is NO, NONE, ZERO evidence that Todd Palin held any of these sorts of views, and especially Sarah. She has said NOTHING about this in terms of advocacy in her public life. What more do we need? If she IS a secessionist, she sure has a funny way of showing it since she is now the most powerful person in the state.
With so many questions out there, Palin has to 'triage' all of them and answer those that matter. Those that are insignificant she SHOULD ignore. This is one that should be ignored once it gets a quick response. They gave a quick response. They had a quick denial from the AIP itself. Case closed so far as Palin goes. Why dwell on that which has been satisfactorily answered?
So far as sitting down with the "Hate Sarah" press, I'd simply refuse to sit down with any news organization that had unfairly mentioned slander, innuendo, or other attack UNTIL they publicly acknowledged their slander. It would really put the MSM in the corner. They would scream for interviews, and Palin would show clips of them going after Piper, Bristol, or a strong female with their unsavory attacks. She'd say, "I can't trust you. When you publicly apologize, and allow me to balance your inquisitor panels to insure balance, then I'll sit down with you." I think women everyone, and Americans, in general, would stand and cheer. They hate the media almost as much as they hate the current Congress.
You are so right!
It's a red flag, big time, FK.
That by itself doesn't offend me. But is it a deal breaker for you? I was none too happy about Romney being a Mormon, but I'll admit that I voted for him in the primary because I thought that was the best choice at the time. Two months before it happened I really didn't know if I could do it. :)
And while I don't know if there are any Orthodox serving in Congress, there are several Catholics I would jump at the chance to vote for, such as Rick Santorum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.